We are seeing a push for people to be vaccinated for a virus that kills less that one percent for those who do not have a comprised immune system. The numbers are hidden of course and that raises the question of why the censorship. This link will lead you to censored videos of doctors speaking on the subject of the COVID19 Vaccine.
President Joe Biden recently announced his “wartime” strategy to confront COVID-19. His weapon: vaccines. The battle plan builds on former President Donald Trump’s arsenal of 400 million vaccines, with a purchase of an additional 200 million more shots so all Americans can get both their recommended doses faster.
To date, more than 60 million vaccine doses have been distributed in the United States and more than 10 million people have received their first of two doses.
Priority favors health care workers and those most at risk from infection, but people at the back of the vaccine line worry their turn for a jab won’t come fast enough. Biden’s purchase aims to alleviate supply concerns by providing enough doses for all 300 million Americans by the end of summer 2021.
But how many doses may go unclaimed? Health officials urge everyone to get vaccinated for COVID-19, but some are not so sure they want it.
This wary cohort is a sizable segment of the population. According to the latest COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 51 percent of Americans are either hesitant or opposed to the vaccine. Most of this group is taking a wait-and-see approach and watching for any problems that emerge in those who get the shot first.
One in five U.S. adults draw a deeper line in the sand, saying they will either “definitely not” get the new vaccine, or they will concede “only if required” for work, school, or other activities.
In California and Ohio, about half of frontline workers in hospitals and nursing homes are refusing the vaccine. And the U.S. Department of Defense reports that many service members are also refusing the shot, but won’t say how many are opting out.
Even some seniors are either on the fence about the shot or simply refuse it altogether. A survey of people 65 and older found that 16 percent of seniors are unsure they want it, and 6 percent say they definitely won’t get it.
For those eager to get their shot, the people who reject it are puzzling, because the push to take the vaccine is so well-publicized and the pitch so compelling. This government-endorsed medical intervention promises protection from a virus linked to millions of deaths, and health officials warn that restrictive social measures could last forever without it.
However, the reasons for refusing the vaccine have compelling features of their own.
New Kind of Shot
The Kaiser survey breaks down those for and against the COVID-19 vaccine by race, age, and political identity. These demographic divisions invite speculation and reveal some curious patterns. But for other groups, the line is crystal clear. For example, those suspicious of vaccines in general will obviously be suspicious of this one.
But the shot designed for the COVID-19 virus (also known as SARS-CoV2) has features that give even those who are otherwise supportive of vaccines cause for concern.
Traditional vaccines work by injecting a weak version of a pathogen to trigger an immune response. The goal is to prime the body to protect itself should it ever face a full-blown infection in the future. The formulation and application of this procedure has evolved dramatically over the past few decades, but the basic principle has been around for a few hundred years.
By contrast, the shots developed to protect against COVID-19 takes a form our ancestors would never have imagined. This new technology influences our immune mechanism at the genetic level. Because these vaccines act on our messenger RNA, they are known as mRNA vaccines.
Before COVID-19, scientists were already researching mRNA vaccines for other diseases in clinical trials. But emergency measures inspired by the pandemic sped up the approval process for candidates designed to protect against SARS-CoV2. Trials were run last year to monitor short-term health effects, but since the public rollout began only a month ago, the long-term impact remains a mystery.
This mRNA vaccine technology is designed to mimic natural viral infections in a way that the immune system recognizes, without the dangers of exposing the body to a genuine infection. In the case of SARS-CoV2 vaccine, it programs your cells to mimic the signature spike protein found on the surface of the COVID-19 virus, thereby programming your immune system to defend itself against this familiar form whenever it comes in contact with the real virus.
That’s what the shot is designed to do, anyway. However, some worry that this still experiential technology may have unintended consequences. One common concern is that mRNA vaccines could alter your DNA. However, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), this is false.
“The mRNA from a COVID-19 vaccine never enters the nucleus of the cell, which is where our DNA is kept. This means the mRNA cannot affect or interact with our DNA in any way. Instead, COVID-19 mRNA vaccines work with the body’s natural defenses to safely develop immunity to disease,” states the CDC.
Another common point of confusion the health agency addresses is the question of who should take the shot, and who can go without. The CDC says just because someone may have developed an immunity to the virus, doesn’t mean they are adequately protected. People who have tested positive for SARS-CoV2 and recovered are still urged to get the vaccine.
“At this time, experts do not know how long someone is protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID-19. The immunity someone gains from having an infection, called natural immunity, varies from person to person. Some early evidence suggests natural immunity may not last very long,” states the CDC.
To drive this point home, in December 2020, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices issued a report claiming that Pfizer’s study of its mRNA vaccine proved that it was highly effective for people who’d already had COVID-19.
But Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) discovered that the CDC was promoting false information. When Massie examined the Pfizer trial, he found that it clearly didn’t demonstrate a benefit for those with evidence of prior SARS-CoV2 infection as the health agency reported.
The congressman confronted the CDC in a private call, and the agency’s principal deputy director, Dr. Anne Schuchat acknowledged the mistake, and apologized for the delay in fixing it. However, as of this report, the CDC’s claim remains unchanged.
In a series of tweets, Massie says that the public needs to know that the CDC is misrepresenting the results of the Pfizer trial. Adding that the very meaning of science “has been perverted for this virus.”
“Baseless claims with no quantification are being made by the government, repeated by the media, and accepted by public,” Massie wrote on Twitter.
As our understanding of mRNA vaccines continues to evolve, the CDC’s claim that the shot doesn’t influence DNA may prove wrong as well.
An article published in the January edition of Nature Genetics finds that DNA stability will change if RNA is chemically modified.
Lead researcher Arne Klungland explained to Phys.org that several research groups are now working together to study what effect this can have on the DNA molecule.
“We already know that R-loop areas are associated with sequences of DNA containing active genes and that this can lead to chromosomal breakage and the loss of genetic information,” Klungland said.
Weighing the Risks
There would be no controversy if vaccines were shown to be 100 percent risk free, but even the most dedicated vaccine supporter has to admit that this medical intervention can do harm. The debate is about how much risk vaccines pose compared to the benefit they deliver.
In several surveys identifying the number of people who are suspicious of the COVID-19 vaccine, the most common concern is side effects. Drugmaker trials showed that reactions do occur, but they were typically mild. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration report from December 2020 on the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, the most common adverse reactions were injection site reactions, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, chills, joint pain, and fever.
Experts add that these reactions, particularly after the second shot, are a good sign, signaling that immune protection is kicking in.
However, since the public roll out of the shot, there has also been evidence of severe and unanticipated symptoms that may be associated with the COVID-19 vaccine. According to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), out of nearly 10,000 reports linked to the COVID-19 shot as of Jan. 29, VAERS has recorded 501 deaths, 1066 hospitalizations, 147 cases of anaphylaxis, and 128 cases of Bell’s palsy.
VAERS is the primary mechanism for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the United States, but keep in mind that their numbers may only reveal a small portion of the real story. A 2010 study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that “fewer than one percent of vaccine injuries” are reported to VAERS.
More than 80 percent of people who test positive for COVID-19 have no symptoms, and most of the remaining group has mild symptoms. COVID-19 has an over 99 percent survival rate for people from zero to 70 without any treatment.
But as health experts remind us, not getting vaccinated carries risks, too. The disease can have serious, life-threatening complications, particularly for those who have two or more comorbidities, especially obesity and diabetes. And if you get sick, you could compromise the health of friends, family, or anyone else you may come in contact with.
So it’s a gamble, but officials say the odds are in the vaccine’s favor. According to the CDC, clinical trials of all vaccines must first show they are safe and effective before they can be authorized or approved for use, including the ones for COVID.
“The known and potential benefits of a COVID-19 vaccine must outweigh the known and potential risks of the vaccine,” states the CDC.
However, the risk that remains is all yours. The federal government has granted COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers immunity from liability if serious reactions occur. Likewise, government regulators and private companies that make the SARS-CoV2 vaccine mandatory for employees are also protected from litigation in the event of harm.
Considering the Unknowns
While health officials are generally in lockstep support with the new vaccine, many independent doctors say the risk it carries is still too great. One of these doctors is board-certified emergency physician and founder of America’s Front Line Doctors (AFLD), Dr. Simone Gold. In a recent lecture discussing “The Truth About the COVID-19 Vaccine,” Gold says the medical establishment ignores serious concerns that hang over this “experimental biological intervention.” One of these concerns include the lack of independently published animal studies for a product that has been rushed to market.
Gold criticizes the “tremendous failure” that has been observed in creating previous coronavirus vaccines but the SARS-CoV1 vaccine relies on a different anagram. Those shots utilized recombinant modified vaccinia Ankara (rMVA), which is not the same as the mRNA technology used in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s products designed to protect against SARS-CoV2.
In terms of speed, the new COVID-19 vaccine is a miracle, and is one of the points of concern raised by critics.
In a Q & A for Johns Hopkins Medicine, Lisa Maragakis, M.D., M.P.H., senior director of infection prevention, and Gabor Kelen, M.D., director of the Johns Hopkins Office of Critical Event Preparedness and Response, say that such concerns miss an important point.
“The mRNA technology used to develop the COVID-19 vaccines has been years in development to prepare for outbreaks of infectious viruses. Thus, the manufacturing process was ready very early in the pandemic.”
COVID-19 vaccines created with mRNA technology allows for “a faster approach than the traditional way vaccines are made,” they write.
When it comes to whether somebody should get the shot, Johns Hopkins encouraged people to talk to their doctor and consult other health care organizations, but said the decision is ultimately up to each person.
“You alone make the decision about whether to get a COVID-19 vaccine.”
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg made comments last year about COVID-19 vaccines that clash with policies that his platform has implemented, leaked video shows.
Zuckerberg said in July 2020: “I do just want to make sure that I share some caution on this [vaccine] because we just don’t know the long-term side effects of basically modifying people’s DNA and RNA … basically the ability to produce those antibodies and whether that causes other mutations or other risks downstream. So, there’s work on both paths of vaccine development.”
Zuckerberg took a different stance when appearing in a virtual forum in November 2020 with Dr. Anthony Fauci, a leading government scientist.
“Just to clear up one point, my understanding is that these vaccines do not modify your DNA or RNA. So that’s just an important point to clarify,” Zuckerberg said, prompting Fauci to say: “No, first of all, DNA is inherent in your own nuclear cell. Sticking in anything foreign will ultimately get cleared.”
Facebook didn’t respond to a request for comment.
The footage was published by Project Veritas, a journalism watchdog. It was allegedly from Facebook’s internal weekly question-and-answer session.
Zuckerberg’s Facebook has imposed harsh guidelines on what people can post about COVID-19, and banned or restricted a number of users for violating the policies.
Facebook earlier in February said it would take down any posts with claims about vaccines deemed false by health groups or its so-called fact-checkers.
Facebook stated in a blog post, “Today, following consultations with leading health organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO), we are expanding the list of false claims we will remove to include additional debunked claims about the coronavirus and vaccines.”
The list includes “claims that the COVID-19 vaccine changes people’s DNA.”
Administrators for some groups will be required to greenlight all posts if the groups have been labeled problematic in terms of posts that have been made.
“Claims about COVID-19 or vaccines that do not violate these policies will still be eligible for review by our third-party fact-checkers, and if they are rated false, they will be labeled and demoted,” the company stated.
Footage showing Zuckerberg commenting privately on various issues has been made public before by Project Veritas. In one clip, he praised President Joe Biden’s early executive orders “on areas that we as a company care quite deeply about and have for some time.”
“Areas like immigration, preserving DACA, ending restrictions on travel from Muslim-majority countries, as well as other executive orders on climate and advancing racial justice and equity. I think these were all important and positive steps,” he said.
Facebook banned former President Donald Trump in January while Trump was still in office. Trump remains blocked from the platform.
Dozens of Aussie medical boards and AHPRA have judicially removed doctors’ right of refusal and right of professional judgement for an individual patient’s needs, or professional doubts about the government’s propaganda regarding its effectiveness.
Quotes from the joint statement published by AHRPA:
“In informing their patient or client of a conscientious objection to COVID-19 vaccination, practitioners must be careful not to discourage their patient or client from seeking vaccination. Practitioners authorized to prescribe and/or administer the vaccine but who have a conscientious objection must ensure appropriate referral options are provided for vaccination.”
“While some health practitioners may have a conscientious objection to COVID-19 vaccination, all practitioners, including students on placement, must comply with local employer, health service or health department policies, procedures and guidelines relating to COVID-19 vaccination.”
“Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign (including via social media) is not supported by National Boards and may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action.
“National Boards have developed social media guidance to help registered health practitioners understand and meet their obligations when using social media. The guidance explains that registered health practitioners must make sure that their social media activity is consistent with the regulatory framework for their profession and does not contradict or counter public health campaigns or messaging, such as the Australian COVID-19 Vaccination Policy.
“Health practitioners are reminded that it is an offence under the National Law to advertise a regulated health service (including via social media) in a way that is false, misleading or deceptive. Advertising that includes false, misleading or deceptive claims about COVID-19, including anti-vaccination material, may result in prosecution by Ahpra [sic].”
News Corp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, CBS and Comcast own 90% of the TV stations, radio stations, movies, magazines and newspapers that 277 million Americans rely on for news and entertainment.
The consolidation of news and entertainment media companies gained attention in early 2015 when an infographic that depicts six media corporations’ chain of ownership went viral on social media.
The infographic is mostly accurate, but it’s a little out of date. It lists General Electric as the owner of NBC, Focus Features, Comcast and Universal Pictures, but General Electric sold its media holdings to Comcast in 2013. That means Comcast has replaced General Electric as one of the six corporations that control 90% of the media.
Media consolidation has been on a fast march over the last 30 years. In 1983, 50 companies owned 90% of American media. Over that time, Congress and the FCC have largely deregulated the media industry. The number of television stations that one company can own jumped from seven to 12 in 1985. The FCC also stopped enforcing the Fairness Doctrine, it dropped requirements for a minimum amount of non-entertainment programming, and it lifted limits on the amount of advertising that could be broadcast in one hour. Those changes made it easier and more profitable for corporations to own more media properties.
Then, in 1996, President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act, which led to rapid consolidation of the radio industry because it lifted a 40-station ownership cap. A 2004 appeals court decision also struck down even more media ownership rules.
At least 181 people have died in the US according to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), after taking experimental vaccines meant to combat a 99.4% to 99.8% survival rate virus, the death toll for which a team of researchers in one state found may be inflated by as much as 40%.
In Miami, a healthy 56-year-old doctor died after a strange reaction to the Pfizer COVID vaccine, involving blood blisters. Although Pfizer has made only politic statements, the doctor’s wife is certain his death was caused by the vaccine.
In Portugal a 41-year-old health worker died after taking the Pfizer vaccine. The father of Sonia Acevedo told a Portuguese daily last week:
“She was okay. She hadn’t had any health problems…I just want answers. I want to know what led to my daughter’s death.”
A former Chief Science Officer and VP for Pfizer has called the widespread rollout of experimental vaccines for COVID “nonsense.”
“There is absolutely no need for vaccines to extinguish the pandemic. I’ve never heard such nonsense talked about vaccines. You do not vaccinate people who aren’t at risk from a disease. You also don’t set about planning to vaccinate millions of fit and healthy people with a vaccine that hasn’t been extensively tested on human subjects.”
SAGE is the UK Scientific Advisor Group for Emergencies, the UK agency steering the coronavirus response.
Dr. Yeadon says that some level of herd immunity to the virus is much closer than health authorities are saying, due to T-cell immunity and antibody responses to at least four prior coronaviruses in circulation. Like flu, people will always catch,and a very small percentage will die, of COVID. But the pandemic stage is over, says Dr. Yeadon and his colleagues, but for the continuous announcement of “new cases” mostly based on false-positive test results.
As will be discussed later, official COVID death reporting policies make it difficult to determine what the US COVID death toll actually is. The problem also arises in other countries.
“SAGE says everyone was susceptible and only 7% have been infected. I think this is literally unbelievable. They have ignored all precedent in the field of immunological memory against respiratory viruses. They have either not seen or disregarded excellent quality work from numerous, world-leading clinical immunologists which show that around 30% of the population had prior immunity.”
COVID Deaths Openly Inflated Internationally.
Underscoring the difficulty of tracking how many deaths are actually due to COVID is the disingenuous, but openly admitted, policy of the CDC of counting any death which takes place “with COVID” as being “of COVID.” Dr. Deborah Birx of the White House Coronavirus Task Force said in April:
“to mark it as COVID-19 infection the intent is right now that those if someone dies with COVID-19 we are counting that as a COVID-19.”
In Minnesota a team of researchers, led by two state legislators one of whom is a medical doctor, found that, in a study of nearly 3,000 death certificates, up to 40% of the deaths were primarily caused by factors other than COVID, including vehicle accidents, fatal falls, drownings, and gunshot wounds, but were marked down as COVID anyway. By December, the CDC had listed hundreds of thousands of deaths counting as “COVID” which were also confirmed heart attacks, flu, terminal cancer, and poisoning.
Last March it was reported that Italy was using the same language, indicating an open deception international in scope. The UK Telegram reported “that Italy’s death rate may also appear high because of how doctors record fatalities.” Prof. Walter Ricciardi, scientific adviser to Italy’s minister of health, told the Telegraph:
“The way in which we code deaths in our country is very generous in the sense that all the people who die in hospitals with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus.”
In Louisiana, a woman had a severe reaction to a Pfizer vaccine which caused her to go into uncontrollable convulsions. RT reports the reaction is being investigated (video below.)
In Norway, Bloomberg News reports that health authorities expressed concern after 29 elderly people died after receiving the Pfizer vaccine. Bloomberg reported on January 16:
“Until Friday, the vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech SE was the only one available in Norway, and “all deaths are thus linked to this vaccine,” the Norwegian Medicines Agency said in a written response to Bloomberg on Saturday.”
Dublin University Immunologist Says Large Number of Vaccinated Will Die from Mutant Strains in Months, Will Be Blamed on COVID
Prof. Dolores Cahill received her PhD in Immunology from Dublin City University, and was leader of the Protein Technology Group in the Max-Planck-Institute of Molecular Genetics, Berlin. She is Professor of Translational Science at the UCD School of Medicine and Medical Sciences.
Prof. Cahill’s contention that those who have received COVID vaccines will begin dying in great numbers after 3 to 6 months is echoed by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny D.O., an American physician. A D.O. is a physician who completes medical school the same as an MD, who may perform surgery and prescribe medications the same as an MD.
Both Prof. Cahill and Dr. Tenpenny say that previous attempts to formulate coronavirus vaccines have, after some apparent short-term success, run into the problem of hyper-immune response when exposed to the wild, mutated virus.
“Scientists first attempted to develop coronavirus vaccines after China’s 2002 SARS-CoV outbreak. Teams of US & foreign scientists vaccinated animals with the four most promising vaccines. At first, the experiment seemed successful as all the animals developed a robust antibody response to coronavirus. However, when the scientists exposed the vaccinated animals to the wild virus, the results were horrifying. Vaccinated animals suffered hyper-immune responses including inflammation throughout their bodies, especially in their lungs. Researchers had seen this same “enhanced immune response” during human testing of the failed RSV vaccine tests in the 1960s. Two children died.”
Comparisons to Spanish Flu Neglect Population Difference
COVID is now being compared to the Spanish Flu, because the US reported death toll is allegedly 400,000, but this neglects that the Spanish Flu was nearly a magnitude worse in per capita terms, as the population of the US was about 100,000 million at the time, less than one-third of today, and the death toll was nearly 700,000.
Better comparisons are the 1957 Asian Flu and the 1968 Hong Kong Flu, the latter of which, in that same summer, the country had the largest mass gathering in US history, Woodstock.
Nurses Refuse to Administer Vaccine, FDNY Firefighters Say They’ll Refuse COVID-19 Vaccine
In Coffey County, Kansas, county health department nurses have declined to perform injections of the coronavirus vaccines, citing ethical concerns. On January13 health department administrator Lindsay Payer told WIBW News:
“I will tell you we will have to contract staff outside of our staff to give that vaccine because my staff is not comfortable with that…It’s a new technology. We’ve never seen it before….all liability is gone from them. So, if there’s anything bad about the vaccine it doesn’t go back to them. That’s widely known, and it’s somewhat discomforting to a nurse who has to put that in people’s bodies. So, we will find nurses that are willing to do that. I am not. My staff is not at this time.”
In New York City, more than half of FDNY firefighters have said in an internal poll that they will not take a COVID-19 vaccine when it becomes available to first responders.
The poll was of the oldest and most prestigious first responders union in the country, the Uniformed Firefighters Association.
2020 Comes in at 12% Excess Deaths, How Many Due to Lockdowns?
In a first good end-of-year measure of how 2020 fared in terms of overall deaths, the CDC reports that excess deaths, which is the number over the average of the previous five years, is 12%, or about 330,000 deaths. Thus even with the shell game of counting any death possible as COVID, something killed more people than usual last year. The question is was it COVID, COVID policies, something else, or a combination of all three?
Each year about 40,000 more people are expected to die than the previous year due to the aging Baby Boomer demographic. In addition, a study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association estimated that 20% of excess deaths over and above previous years were due not to COVID, but to the effects of the lockdowns.
“Some people who never had the virus may have died because of disruptions caused by the pandemic,” says Dr. Steven H. Woolf, the director emeritus of the Virginia university’s Center on Society and Health and first author of the study. “These include people with acute emergencies, chronic diseases like diabetes that were not properly cared for, or emotional crises that led to overdoses or suicides.”
If the 20% of excess deaths figure is extrapolated, then nearly 70,000 deaths could be due to the effects of lockdowns such as deferred critical care for other conditions. Supporting that the number may be high, in December the New York Times reported “40,000 extra deaths from diabetes, Alzheimer’s, high blood pressure and pneumonia”alone.
Sustained Pandemic in the US Took Off with Governors’ Orders of COVID Patients into Nursing Homes in Populous States
One characteristic which is said to distinguish the coronavirus from other viruses is transmissibility. But if this is the case, then the effect of the orders of governors from NY, NJ, MI, PA, and CA cannot be discounted, which sent recovering COVD patients into nursing homes.
Most especially in New York, on March 25, Governor Andrew Cuomo resisted the loud objections of nursing home executives, and sent hundreds of COVID patients into the nursing homes where the frailest of the frail were housed. Just days later, the exponential phase of the pandemic in New York hit, at the same time as New Jersey’s.
Would the pandemic in the US, and the excess deaths, have turned out as it did had these orders not been given? Which Cuomo himself likened to touching fire to “dry grass?”
In any accounting for last year’s excess deaths, these orders must bear their share of accountability, regardless of where the political chips may fall.
Yale Epidemiologist Says Hundreds of Thousands of Lives Could Have Been, and Could be Saved with Remedies
Last April the FDA issued a warning that the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the treatment of COVID could cause heart arrhythmia. The warning neglected to mention, as Dr. Lisa Koche, a family medicine doctor in Florida pointed out, that the study the warning was based on gave the study subjects up to 12 times the recommended dose for Plaquenil, a brand name for HCQ. This would almost pre-ordain a negative heart reaction. The dosage instructions for Plaquenil for malaria read:
“Adults: 800 mg followed by 400 mg at 6 hours, 24 hours and 48 hours after the initial dose.”
The study administered as much as 1200 mg a day for 10 days. What would be the purpose of publishing a study designed to fail?
This is one of the intriguing questions surrounding last year’s drama over HCQ, in which the medical establishment seemed determined to prove that something didn’t work that did, according to reams of evidence.
One doctor singing the praises of HCQ is Dr. Harvey Risch, at the Yale School of Public Medicine, who believes judicious use of HCQ could save “75,000 to 100,000 Lives.”
Another remedy which has shown enormous promise, but again is suppressed for mysterious reasons, is Ivermectin, an anti-parasite drug with, like HCQ, a long safety record. One might almost conclude that the interest of the highest health authorities is in people dying, not living, and shepherding the population toward inadequately tested vaccines.
Also recently breaking from Newsweek is a peer-reviewed, Stanford-based international study which shows “no clear” benefit, in slowing COVID, from business closures and lockdowns.
And unreported in the US, in Belgium, a lawsuit is underway, including a criminal complaint, against Bill Gates, a funder and investor in almost every aspect of the pandemic response, and Prof. Neil Ferguson, the Imperial College epidemiologist known as “Professor Lockdown.” The Brussels Times reported last July:
“The group are attacking Gates in court because of his status as a top contributor to the World Health Organisation (WHO) and over his various funding projects into coronavirus treatments and vaccines, while they are going after Ferguson — a top advisor to the WHO and, until recently, to the UK government — for producing mortality and infection rates estimates which they say are “completely wrong.””
Ferguson co-founded the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, based at Imperial, which, according to Business Insider, gets “tens of millions of dollars in annual funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.”
Crimes against humanity refer to specific crimes committed in the context of a large-scale attack targeting civilians, regardless of their nationality. These crimes include murder, torture, sexual violence, enslavement, persecution, enforced disappearance, etc.
Crimes against humanity have often been committed as part of State policies, but they can also be perpetrated by non-State armed groups or paramilitary forces. Unlike war crimes, crime against humanity can also be committed in peacetime, and contrary to genocide, they are not necessarily committed against a specific national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
Crimes against humanity appeared for the first time in a treaty in the 1945 Nuremberg Charter at the end of the Second World War, albeit with a different definition than today.
Unlike other human rights violations, war crimes do not engage State responsibility but individual criminal responsibility. This means that individuals can be tried and found personally responsible for these crimes.
Prohibited acts include:
Deportation or forcible transfer of population
Persecution against an identifiable group
Enforced disappearance of persons
The crime of apartheid
Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health
The people are now seeing that [JB] has lied about the economy and what he was going to do. He said that there was a plan to stop covid, get people back to work, get the children back into school, it’s not happening, he is waiting for the payoff. The [CB] need an event to push the Great Reset, they have begun the narrative. The impeachment trial is a trap for the [DS]/MSM. If [JB] won buy millions of votes what are they worried about. Why are they impeaching someone who they cannot remove from office because he doesn’t hold and office. They are panicking. Everything they are talking about will boomerang back at them. The [DS]/Corrupt Politicians opened the door to impeach anyone, election fraud and insurrection. Trump must prove his innocence, he must inject evidence legally.
As a country, one thing people forget in this modern era is that we’ve been in a national crisis numerous times; far more than people care to recall. We do remember 9/11 and some of us were around during President Kennedy’s assassination. Then there was Abraham Lincoln’s assassination 150 years ago. But there’s a common theme that’s been going on through all of those crises that I think we need to revisit today. And that is about
who is actually behind the scene orchestrating these events that we are continually put into. Is it always unique players in new situations, or is there an underlying theme and a common group of perpetrators with these crimes against America and the world? Is there an organization of people trying to keep us enslaved?
Now, if you go back to the origins of our country, there were people who came to this continent and set up colonies, growing the population until it was eventually large enough that local jurisdictions were needed to manage and maintain the organization of streets, taxes, tariffs, property ownership, et cetera. Then came the creation of a constitutional government from groups of states aligned and working together.
But immediately upon signing the Declaration of Independence, that federal system we established, called the United States of America, essentially needed to declare war against its motherland of England and the ruler, King George. We decided we were no longer going to be ruled from afar by foreign masters; we were not going to be their slaves here, helping to keep them prosperous there.
So, we declared our independence and had the Revolutionary War that went on for a very long time; much longer than most people realize. Through the course of many battles, people were forced to pick a side. The willingness to go against England and King George was not universal from the outset. On numerous occasions, strategies and tactics were compromised by infiltrators and turn coats on both sides. But over time people’s true nature and alliances were revealed; just as is playing out once again before us today. Even some of those closest to President Washington became traitors
against him (and our newly formed country), for the gains they would earn from their British partners.
And even after we won the Revolutionary War, when the Brits had retreated, we then needed to win a second war against England. The War of 1812 was foisted upon us by people trying to get control of America again through our money and banking systems. That was a very extensive battle and bad situation that we had to again fight our way out of. By most accounts, it was a banker’s war to gain control of our banking and monetary systems. They wanted to control our currency, even though the constitution would only
allow for our own government to create our money.
As we move forward in time, what happened during Abraham Lincoln’s presidency? Early on in his administration, and instigated by monarchy agents out of Europe, a rift was accentuated between the Northern and Southern U.S. With that, another variation of the same old bankers’ wars was created. In order to get money to fight that war, Lincoln needed loans from the European banks that held monarchy money; the bloodline families’ money. Those thirteen bloodline families were repursue funds to fight this war against the South. The kid by the Side of the Road by Juan O Savin